Constitution of India, Article 226 – Benefit of increments withdrawn from employee – Recovery of -- Petitioner is working as SS Master, which is a Class-III Post -- Benefit of the increments given in the year 2011, withdrawn in the year 2021 after a period of ten years – Held, no recovery can be made from the petitioner -- Any recovery done from the petitioner be refunded back to him within a period of eight weeks.

(Para 6-9)

A. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 22, 27, 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – FIR under Drugs Act -- Quashing of FIR -- Police did not have the powers to register an FIR or even conduct an investigation concerning offences u/s 27 of the 1940 Act -- FIR quashed.

(Para 10-15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Cheating -- Deliberate false representation with an intent to deceit, leading to the delivery of property, is an essential requirement to attract mischief of an offence u/s 420 of IPC -- Statements u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. indicates that the petitioners offered injections at inflate prices without a valid licence aiming to deceive them -- However, there are no allegations of delivery or sale of actual property -- Thus, the essential elements to attract an offence under Section 420 of the IPC are missing – FIR quashed.

(Para 7, 15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27, Section 100 – Application for additional evidence – Decision upon – Mandate of -- When an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is moved during pendency of the appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate Court to consider the same at the hearing of the appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents for evidence proposed to be adduced have any relevance/ bearing on the issues involved or not -- Appellate Court directed to dispose of the application in accordance with law and then decide the appeal accordingly.

(Para 9, 10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dismissal from service – Acquittal in criminal case – Right to re-instatement -- In departmental proceedings petitioner found guilty of misappropriation of 80 Urea bags and embezzlement of Rs.29,656/- and award was passed against petitioner – No appeal/ revision filed against by petitioner – Held, acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement -- No ground to interfere with impugned dismissal order.

(Para 2-4)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41, Order 42 Rule 1 – Appeal against appellate decree – Procedure -- Order XLI of the Code would apply to the appeals from the appellate decrees also, as contemplated in Rule-1, Order XLII of the said Code.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 25, 27 – Appeal – Procedure -- Appellate Court cannot create a new case for the party, frame the issues and decide the issues without following the procedure contemplated under Order XLI of CPC.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 – Appeal – Pleadings – It is well-settled principle of law that the Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of the parties, and the appellate court is supposed to decide the issues involved in the suit based on the pleadings of the parties.

(Para 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B, 498A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106, 113B -- Dowry death – Presumption – Onus of proof -- Deceased subjected to harassment and cruelty and death occurred within seven years of marriage sustaining 100% burn injuries inside her matrimonial home -- Onus was on the appellants/ accused to establish that it was not a dowry death -- Section 106 of the Evidence Act also put burden on the appellant no.1-husband who went to sleep with her in the same room, but escaped unscathed to explain as to how the death had occurred -- High Court arrived at the rightful conclusion reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and in convicting and sentencing the appellants.

(Para 7-10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216 -- Charge-sheet can be amended/altered at any stage before pronouncement of judgment -- Either prosecution or accused can file application for amendment of charge and in case Court comes to conclusion that charge required to be amended then Court can suo moto amend charge-sheet at any stage before judgment is pronounced.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Criminal breach of trust – Cheating -- Charge-sheet u/s 420 of IPC cannot be framed simultaneously along with offence u/s 406 of IPC.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Medical reimbursement -- Unapproved hospital -- Partial reimbursement at PGI rates – Son of the petitioner is handicapped, also a mentally challenged person suffering from severe abdominal pain/ emergency condition, shifted to the unapproved hospital and on the date of admission, he was operated upon and was discharged on the next day – Held, it would be inhuman to say employee should keep on searching the list of approved hospitals and should first go to an approved hospital or a government hospital by ignoring the developing pain and at the risk of life -- It would be not only perverse but it will also be violative of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Writ petition allowed -- Respondents directed to pay full medical reimbursement.

(Para 8-10)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25FF – Transfer of Undertaking/ Company – Retrenchment compensation – Requirement of -- In case service of the workman is not interrupted by such transfer and terms and conditions of service applicable after such transfer are not in any way less favourable to the workman and new employer is legally liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment compensation on the basis his service has been continuous, there shall be no requirement of notice u/s 25-FF of the Act nor any compensation in lieu of retrenchment  -- Three conditions specified in the proviso are to be satisfied -- Employees can claim compensation against the transfer, if the three conditions remain unsatisfied.

(Para 16-20)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(k) – Industrial dispute – Transfer of Undertaking -- Petitioner-company while making its worker apprised of the factum with regard to proposed transfer/sale, specifically assured workmen of the petitioner-company that upon transfer they would become workmen/employees of HFL-transferee company with continuity of service on the conditions which in aggregate would be similar and in any case would not be less favourable to the existing conditions on which they are employed with the petitioner -- No dispute exist interse petitioner and its workers – Merely by submitting demand notice, respondent-union cannot be permitted to claim that “industrial dispute” exist interse petitioner and workmen.

(Para 25-28)

C. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(k), 10(1) -- Industrial dispute -- Demand Notice – Reference – Duty of Authority -- Appropriate Government, while considering/ making reference in terms of Section 10(1) of the Act, requires to apply its mind to ascertain whether industrial dispute, if any, exists or not – Firstly, authority needs to form an opinion that industrial dispute exist, only thereafter, it can proceed to make reference -- Authority cannot delve into the merits of the dispute, but before arriving at a conclusion that industrial dispute exist, if any, in the parties, authority needs to form an opinion on the basis of material adduced on record by the parties.

(Para 29-38)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ – Delay and laches – Seniority list challenged after 13 years – Petitioner is seeking entitlement to agitate his belated claim on the strength of directions issued by the Court in other case -- Assertion of petitioner that he has a fresh cause of action for filing the instant petition after judgment cannot be sustained -- Unexplained delay and laches in invoking Article 226 jurisdiction has repeatedly been held to be a serious impediment for grant of relief -- Claim of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and cannot be entertained – Writ dismissed.

(Para 11-23)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20, 29 – NDPS -- Acquittal – Recovery of 1.25 kg of Charas in random check – As per Logbook entry, the police party was traveling during the relevant point of time towards a different destination -- This is also the evidence of DW-1 and 2 -- DW-1 is the SHO and DW-2 was the driver of the official vehicle -- All the witnesses belonged to the police department -- No independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution -- Even the undisputed document marked and the statement given by the two police witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution -- Conviction set aside and the appellants acquitted.

(Para 5-9)

East Punjab Evacuee’s (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 4, 6 -- East Punjab Displaced Persons Land Re-settlement Act, 1949 (Act 36 of 1949), Section 9 – Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (31 of 1950), Section 12 – Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 5(1)(a) -- Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 2(f), 3 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Lease by Muslims before independence of India – Occupancy rights – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Plaintiffs were already in possession of the suit property much prior to the 1947 Act -- It is not case of State/ defendants-appellants that they ever took possession of the property in dispute by following the procedure as laid down in Section 6 of the Act -- As possession was never taken from the plaintiffs by following the procedure as laid down in Section 6 of the 1947 Act, therefore, said possession cannot be held to have become unauthorised.

-- Nothing on record to suggest that lease in favour of the plaintiffs was ever terminated by the custodian, in whom the property had been vested by virtue of Section 4 of the 1947 Act, by following the procedure laid down in Section 9 (2) of the 1949 Act -- It is not the case of the defendants-appellants that the present case fails under any of the categories mentioned at (a), (b) and (c) of Section 12 of the 1950 Act and as such, it is held that Section 12 of the Central Act of 1950 or Section 9 of the 1949 East Punjab Act did not affect the rights of the plaintiffs/ respondents as tenants on the suit land.

-- Plaintiffs being in possession of the suit land at least since 1914-15, without paying any rent to the owners and paying only the land revenue and cesses and the entry in the revenue record being “Bashra Malkan Bewajah Derina Kast”, therefore, there can be no doubt in holding that plaintiffs had acquired the occupancy rights.

-- Plaintiffs having acquired the occupancy rights in the suit land vested with the ownership rights in view of the provisions of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1952.

-- It is only the Civil Court alone, which would have jurisdiction over the issue as to whether a person had acquired occupancy rights or not, and consequent to the acquiring of the occupancy rights, whether the ownership rights had vested in him or not.

(Para 13-27)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Schedule - Article 54 -- Specific performance of contract – Limitation -- In the agreement dated 17.12.1989, it is specifically mentioned that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of the said agreement -- One month would expire on 16.01.1990, limitation period would be three years from the said date, which would expire on 16.01.1993 – Suit filed  in September, 1993 -- Suit liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone – Advance of Rs. 80,000/- ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs along with 12% simple interest.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 -- Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1992, Rule 11 – Unequal promotion Quota – Principle of Intelligible defferentia -- Impugned Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Director provide for 60% quota to the Principals promoted from the cadre of Headmasters and 40% to the Principals promoted from the cadre of Lecturers for being placed as Deputy Directors – No reasonable classification to the extent of providing unequal quota to the Principals promoted from the cadre of lecturers and Principals promoted from the cadre of Headmasters is in clear violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- Rule 11 as amended in 2005 quashed to that extent.

(Para 12, 17-20)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter -- Recovery of benefits already drawn – Permissibility of -- Ad-hoc appointment as Assistant Teacher (L.T Grade), on 20.09.1986 -- Services regularized on 07.08.1993 -- After calculating ad-hoc period Selection Grade was sanctioned on 20.09.1996 – By the impugned orders dated 08.12.2017 and 05.09.2019, respondent-State cancelled the payment of Selection Grade to the petitioner -- Writ petition disposed of, with the observations that the benefit, if any, granted to the petitioner shall not be recovered -- Amount of recovery made from the petitioner, if any, shall also be paid back to the petitioner.

(Para 2-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed offender – Quashing -- Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued for 04.11.2022 -- Proclamation warrant were fixed on 03.11.2022 at the house of the petitioner, public place and notice board of the Court -- On 04.11.2022, as one month’s time has not elapsed after the publication, the case was adjourned to 16.12.2022 awaiting the presence of the petitioner – Held, the trial Court could not extend the time by simply adjourning the case for awaiting the appearance of the petitioner and was mandatorily required to issue the proclamation against for publication thereof in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C -- Apart from that, the proclamation was not read publicly in some conspicuous place in the town/ village in which the accused ordinarily resided and the proclamation was not duly published – Impugned order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender set aside.

(Para 1, 6-8)

Family Pension – Right of wife – Deceased employee gave affidavit in favour of respondent no. 4/ brother’s wife for service benefits and family pension – Held, once the widow is claiming the family pension on the basis of the Rules, the Department cannot deny her benefit -- Family pension is to be admissible only to the claimants envisaged under the Rules, will not be governed by the affidavit issued by the employee concerned – Petitioner/ wife held entitled family pension and interest on the arrears @ 6% per annum.

(Para 5, 10, 15, 16)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9, Section 151 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Suit for declaration -- No allegation in the plaint that defendants had encroached the suit land -- Suit itself was for declaration simplicitor that plaintiff had become owner of some portion of suit land by adverse possession & remaining portion of suit land by purchase -- It was for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading cogent evidence -- Plaintiff cannot be permitted to involve the Court in an exercise to hunt for evidence – Application dismissed.

(Para 1, 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) -- Additional evidence in  Rebuttal -- The fact concerning which, additional evidence being sought to be led, was already pleaded in the plaint -- In fact, it was the foundational fact -- Plaintiffs were required to lead evidence in affirmative on the facts pleaded in the plaint -- They cannot be allowed to lead such evidence in rebuttal -- Application dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 105 – Proclaimed person – Accused abroad -- Petitioner had left for England on 19.05.2019 and though the summons were issued vide order dated 19.04.2019, the same was not received back and thereafter, when the non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner vide order dated 06.06.2019, received back unserved with the report that she has gone to England -- A person cannot be said to “abscond” or “evade” the execution of warrant when he had gone to a distant place before the issue of the warrant – Impugned order was not passed in consonance with the mandate of Sections 82 & 105 of Cr.P.C. and is not sustainable in the eyes of law, set aside.

(Para 8-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Refusal to marry -- Anticipatory bail -- Neither there is any incident of provocation nor any instigation -- Mere refusal of the proposal for marriage does not attract the provisions of the offence u/s 306 IPC – Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- POCSO – Rape -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law/ CCL – Right of -- Penetrative sexual assault on minor prosecutrix --  Word “shall”, suggests that normally, prayer, if any, made for grant of bail deserves to be allowed -- No material worth credence was ever adduced on record by the prosecution to suggest that in the event of CCL being enlarged on bail, he may not only come in contact of hardened criminals but may again indulge in such activities – Principle of non-stigmatizing semantics is required to be followed -- Bail allowed with conditions.

(Para 8-18)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 437, 439 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Inventory report not signed by accused -- A person who conducts search is supposed to sign the recovery memo -- Drug Inspector has conducted search, but the recovery memo not signed by him – Bail allowed.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018), Section 13(6) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee --  Petitioner is feeling difficulty in serving at Government ITI Dugadda, he wants to be transferred at a suitable place particularly in District Haridwar and made a representation -- Writ petition disposed of, respondent No.2 directed to take a decision on petitioner’s representation by a speaking and reasoned order, within a period of one week.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 18(b), 29 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity – Regular bail –  Trial delayed due to the repeated and continuous non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the State cannot justifiably oppose the prayer of the petitioner for bail -- Petitioner in custody since 13.09.2022, there is no foreseeable conclusion to the trial in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 7-9)

Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970, Rule 2.2 (b) -- Disciplinary proceedings after retirement – Permissibility of -- No disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated after 2 years of the retirement --  Petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2020 and the chargesheet being served upon him on 02.05.2022 relating to an incident related to the year 2014 – Held, respondent-State did not had jurisdiction to serve a chargesheet, the same is set aside.

(Para 2, 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Dowry death – Appeal against acquittal -- Parents-in-law -- They were residing separately and had no occasion to harass the deceased -- Difficult to believe the prosecution case that parent-in-paw used to harass the deceased on account of dowry soon before her death – Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while holding that the complicity of the parents-in-law of the deceased was not established based on the evidence led before it – High Court will not interfere with the same even if an alternative view is possible – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 30-33)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 14, 26D, 26E -- Secured Debt – Red entry/ Lien by Excise and Income Tax department – Right of – SARFAESI proceedings initiated – Petitioner-Bank is not only a secured creditor but has created the first charge over the property in question as far as back in the year, 2013 – Excise and Taxation Department got entered a report dated 09.07.2015 and Income Tax Department got entered report dated 05.02.2018 in revenue record -- Held, once the petitioner is a secured creditor and has moreover created the first charge over the property, then obviously, it has the first right to realise its dues – Writ petition allowed, respondents directed to remove the red entry qua the property in question.

(Para 5, 6, 11-13)

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of minor child – Sisters of deceased wife -- Natural father – Right of -- Child, who lost her mother at tender age, cannot be deprived of the company of her father and natural brother -- At the relevant time, the appellant had no other option but to look upon the sisters of his deceased wife to nurture his infant child -- Merely because of the unfortunate circumstances faced by the appellant as a result of which, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were given the temporary custody of the minor child and only because they  looked after her for few years, the same cannot be a ground to deny the custody of the minor child to the appellant, who is her only natural guardian -- Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 directed to handover the custody of the minor child forthwith – Meeting rights given for every Wednesday between 04:00 pm and 06:00 pm.

(Para 13-17)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9, 13 – Divorce – Decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Appellant did not agree to cohabitation –  Upon failure of cohabitation for a period of one year after grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent held entitled to dissolution of the marriage.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 Exception 2, 294, 376(2)(n), 377, 498A, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape/ Unnatural offence – Husband and wife – Second marriage without divorce -- Quashing of FIR -- As per the amended definition of section 375 (2013), if offender and victim are husband and wife then consent is immaterial and no offence u/s 375 is made out and as such there is no punishment u/s 376 of IPC -- There is repugnancy in the situation when everything is repealed u/s 375 then how offence u/s 377 would be attracted if it is committed between husband and wife.

-- Marriage was solemnized between petitioner and complainant as per Adivasi customs and approval to second marriage for tribes and considered its legal sanctity, the marriage of the petitioner even though divorce from first wife did not take place, cannot be considered to be illegal act on the part of the petitioner as also respondent No.2 has admitted that she is the wife of the petitioner.

-- Petitioner is not punitive for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(n) and Section 377 of IPC -- For constituting offence u/s 498-A IPC, there is no allegation of any demand of dowry -- For other offences i.e. Sections 294 and 506 of IPC, no date, place and time has been disclosed and as such the complaint is a malicious prosecution as there was inter se dispute between husband and wife.

Petition allowed, FIR quashed.

(Para 11-22)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 – Recovery suit -- Attachment of property before judgment -- Provision contained in Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is an extraordinary provision and a drastic one -- It is not the provision to be adopted as a matter of course --  Provision has to be invoked with utmost caution and circumspection -- It has to be invoked only when there is cogent material on record for the Court to believe possible mischief at the hands of defendant with an intent to defeat or to obstruct the execution of decree yet to passed.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 – Recovery suit -- Attachment of property before judgment – Substitution with another property -- Trial Court after being satisfied with the evaluation of the property allowed the substitution – Evaluation of which is sufficient to secure the interest of the plaintiff – No reason to interfere – Revision dismissed.

(Para 11, 12)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 33, 35 -- Suit for specific performance – Insufficient stamp on agreement – Penalty of 10 times – Trial court imposed 10 times penalty -- Imposition of penalty to the extent of ten times, is not mandatory and discretion lies with the authority -- Parties entered into agreement to sell, without having knowledge of the amendment carried out by the State of Punjab -- Petitioner-plaintiff shall be liable to pay the deficient stamp duty, along with equivalent amount of penalty, within a period of 30 days. Amit Kumar’s case 2022(3) Law Herald 2472 relied – Revision allowed.

(Para 1, 13-17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Section 145, 146 – Issue of possession – Decree of civil court – Effect of -- Proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. pertain to the factum of possession of a party and not the right to possess which is to be determined by the Civil Court -- Once the factum of possession and right to possess both have been adjudicated upon by the appropriate Civil Court, the question of initiation of proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. does not arise.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group-B Service Rules, 1995 -- Qualification in advertisement – Recruitment Rules – Applicability of -- Bachelor degree in Agricultural Engineering added as one of the qualification for appointment to the post in question after issuance of advertisement -- Petitioner cannot claim benefit of such changed qualification, and his eligibility has to be seen with reference to the Rules as were prevailing on the date of commencement of selection process.

(Para 6)

B. Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group-B Service Rules, 1995 -- Qualification as per rules – Subsequent amendment – Effect of -- As per the recruitment Rules in vogue at the time of advertisement, a candidate with Bachelor degree in Agriculture or possessing any qualification recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto, alone is eligible for appointment to the post in question -- Subsequent amendment in the Rules will not improve the case of petitioner.

(Para 7)

C. Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group-B Service Rules, 1995 -- Qualification – Permitting candidate without qualification -- Estoppel  against Public Service Commission -- Eligibility of a candidate is scrutinised at the time of interview or thereafter at the time of appointment --  There cannot be estoppel against statute -- Recruitment Rules are statutory in nature and any person, who is not qualified as per the recruitment Rules, cannot claim estoppel against the selecting body i.e. Public Service Commission by contending that after permitting him to appear in the selection process, his candidature cannot be rejected on the ground that his qualification is not as per the requirement of the Rules.

(Para 9)

Uttarakhand Regularization of Daily Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part-time and Ad-hoc appointed employees Rules, 2013 – Regularisation of daily wages employees – Petitioners completed more than 14 years of service -- Services of the petitioners can be regularized under Regularization Rules of 2013 -- Respondent cannot take other plea to deprive the petitioners of their right to claim regularization with the respondent-Department -- Writ petitions allowed, a writ of mandamus issued commanding the respondents to consider the case of petitioners of all these writ petitions for regularization.

(Para 9, 10)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Divorce -- Cruelty -- Denial of the appellant/ wife for making physical relationship with respondent/ husband amounts to cruelty with respondent.

(Para 11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 --  Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Automatic cancellation of bail -- Whether High Court can impose a condition of automatic cancellation of bail order -- Cancelling of bail order directly affects freedom of a person which affects his fundamental rights -- Reasonable opportunity of hearing is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India – Held, if there is an automatic cancellation of bail order, then valuable right of natural justice is denied to accused -- Such condition could not be made part of the bail order.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 362 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 403 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Automatic cancellation of bail -- Review of order -- Court is barred from reviewing or altering its own order under Section 362 of Cr.P.C./ 403 of B.N.S.S., 2023 -- Both sections are pari materia -- While recalling a judgment Court has to apply its mind and has to look into the facts of the case, therefore, bar u/s 362 of Cr.P.c. or new Section 403 of B.N.S.S., 2023 will be operative, but there are certain exceptions when Court can recall/relook into the judgment and violation of fundamental rights is one of the said exceptions -- If condition of automatic cancellation of bail order is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, then order will be revived and Court can consider the application for modification also.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Repudiation of Insurance claim – Voter I Card as date of birth proof -- While a Voter ID card is a widely recognized identification document for civic duties, it is often deemed to be a non-standard proof of date of birth within the insurance industry -- Insurance Company erred in rejecting the petitioner’s claim solely on the ground that the deceased insured’s date of birth, as recorded in the voter ID/voter list, differed from the date of birth stated in his other documents – Insurance company ordered to correct the identified error and reassess the Petitioner's claim and directed to disburse the insured amount to the Petitioner within one week.

(Para 8-12, 23)

Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 2017), Section 122, 130 – GST -- Excess Stock at business premises --  Proceedings u/s 130 of the GST Act cannot be put to service if excess stock is found at the time of survey.

(Para 5, 10)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 2(g), 17 –Deficiency in service by Hospital -- Dead body of father of complainant handed over to another family – That family cremated the said body – Appellants-Hospital could not have avoided their liability on account of deficiency of service -- NCDRC directed the appellant-Hospital to pay only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants and with a further direction that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission – Held, no justification for passing such an order – Rs.25,00,000/- compensation awarded by SCDRC affirmed to be paid to respondent/ complainant with interest.

(Para 8-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Principal amount – Interest thereupon – Repayment of loan – Ground of -- If the rate of interest of 3% instead of 1.8% per month has been added on the principal amount and the amount in the cheques reflects the same, it cannot be said that the cheques were not for repayment of the principal amount -- When the respondent/ accused does not dispute that he has handed over the cheques or signed on them, it was incumbent upon him, the moment he claims the amount(s) were repaid to the appellant/ complainant to have either taken back the cheques or instructed the bank concerned to not honour the concerned cheques -- Closure of the bank accounts within a few weeks of issuance of the cheque raises serious questions about the conduct and intent of the respondent/ accused – Conviction  by trial court, upheld.

(Para 16)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 1 -- Statement of Objects and Reasons – It was enacted to provide for institutionalization of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and property of older persons as well as to provide need-based maintenance to the parents and senior citizens -- The “Act” aims to give more attention to the care and protection of older persons while envisaging simple, inexpensive and speedy procedure for the protection of their life and property -- The Act further casts a duty upon the State to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens are protected and they are able to live their lives with security and dignity -- The Act is a special legislation and its provisions have to be construed liberally to further its primary objective to ensure social justice to the abused parents and senior citizens.

(Para 24-29)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 2(f) -- Right to property – Ownership of property – Interpretation of -- Petitioner is in possession over the property in question through her husband, who had accrued the right over the property by way of a Will executed by the petitioner’s mother-in-law in favour of her husband -- Respondent no.2 argues that the petitioner does not have the sole ownership over the property and the property is held jointly by respondent no. 2/ niece as well, thus, the petitioner not being the owner lacks any right to seek eviction – Held, term “property” as defined u/s 2 (f) of the Act, includes any ‘right or interest in such property’ and is not limited to ownership of the property.

(Para 31)

C. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 2(f), 4, 22 -- Uttarakhand Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011, Rule 19 – Power to order eviction -- Duty is cast upon the District Magistrate to ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity -- The term ‘security and dignity’ is to be construed in wider terms and cannot be subjected to any limitations that may have frustrate the objective of the “Act” -- The term ‘security’ can be understood in terms of security of his/her place of residence – Power to order ‘eviction’ is implicit in it and holding it contrary would frustrate the very purpose for which the Act was enacted.

(Para 35)

D. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 3, 22, 27 -- Eviction of niece – Maintainability of -- Civil suits between parties pending – Effect of --  Petitioner, is an old-aged lady in her late seventies, who is stated to have been suffering from serious ailments and is presently undergoing Dialysis; she is currently on ventilator -- Respondent no. 2/ niece interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner’s property thereby endangering her life -- Court deemed it just and proper that justice would be met if the petitioner is allowed to enjoy her property without any hindrance -- Maintenance Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction against niece  -- Rights of the parties over the property is sub-judice before the civil court is concerned, it has no bearing to the facts of the case -- Application filed by the petitioner against the respondent no. 2/ niece was clearly maintainable -- Respondent no.2 is directed to vacate the property in question within a week.

(Para 36-45)

E. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 4, 22 -- Eviction without seeking maintenance – Maintainability of -- ‘Maintenance’ and ‘eviction’ are two separate remedies which fall under two different chapters of the Act and to hold that availing one of the remedy is a must to avail the other, would not be in the line with the Scheme of the Statute -- Thus, claiming ‘maintenance’ is not a prerequisite to seek ‘eviction’ under the Act -- Petitioner seeking ‘eviction’ of respondent no. 2 was clearly maintainable even in the absence of any claim for maintenance.

(Para 43)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Interim maintenance – Loan upon husband – Ground of -- Petitioner/husband paying Rs. 5,000/- to wife and daughter u/s 12 of DV Act -- Court by the impugned order increased the maintenance to Rs. 7,500/- -- No detailed discussion made as to why the amount has been increased, but it, per se, does not invalidate the order -- After deduction, the salary of the revisionist is Rs. 28,241/- -- Taking loan may not be a ground, per se, to reduce the amount of maintenance – Held, the amount of interim maintenance is not excessive – Revision dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Nikah/ Muslim marriage in autorickshaw – Conversion of religion -- CBI enquiry – Witnesses of marriage stated that neither did they participate in the marriage nor have signed the marriage certificate -- Marriage solemnized appears to be an eye wash as by no stretch of imagination, a Maulvi/Quazi under the Mohammedan law can be expected to perform NIKAH in an auto-rickshaw, without the presence of two witnesses coupled with the place of solemnization of marriage stated to be at Masjid, raises a profound and conspicuous suspicion which needs to be debunked by conducting probe through an independent and Central agency i.e. CBI.

-- CBI will conduct a thorough and fair inquiry into the matter particularly from the perspective as to whether any such attempt of coordinated and illegal conversion for the sake of marriage has been made and the motive behind the marriage of getting it solemnized in an auto-rickshaw without the presence of any witnesses and an attorney; and also whether the Maulvi/Quazi was competent enough to perform the marriage as per the desired customs and rituals of the Muslim religion, at such a ‘place’, and also to inquire into the credentials of the attorney.

(Para 2-6)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 506  -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 9, 10 – POCSO -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law – Right of -- A juvenile in conflict with law has to be necessarily released on bail unless proviso is applicable -- No finding recorded by JJ Board that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of the case -- Without recording the said finding, bail could not have been denied -- Psychological Assessment Report of the Juvenile records that the juvenile does not belong to high risk category and against the column “worry list of child” it is mentioned that there was “no worry” – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-10)

Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 2(f), 3 -- East Punjab Evacuee’s (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 4, 6 -- Lease by Muslims before independence of India – Rights of lessee – Occupancy tenants/ owner of land -- Plaintiffs claimed to have acquired rights of occupancy tenants in the said land and that after coming into force of the Act, they had become owner thereof – Plaintiffs sought a decree of declaration to that effect and also sought to restrain the defendants from interfering in their possession -- Stand of the defendants-State was that after migration of the Muslim landowners to Pakistan, the land had vested in the custodian and the lease hold rights of the plaintiffs came to an end and that they had become liable to be evicted -- Suit was decreed by the trial Court, first appeal of State dismissed – Regular Second appeal also dismissed.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (3 of 1911), Section 22 – Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Rules, 1976, Rule 3 -- Removal of President of Municipal Council – Appointments of contractual employees -- Appointment letters distributed by President in a programme which was yet to be fixed -- Employees are still working in the Municipal Council, no allegation by the official respondents that the same was done dishonestly or for any extraneous consideration or by using the corrupt practices – It amount to misuse of power, but not an abuse of power – Not warrant his removal from the office – Impugned order quashed.

(Para 18-20)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Landlady wants to convert the entire ground floor into a big hall so as to open a showroom -- Tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to what should be his/ her necessity -- Neither the tenant can object in this regard nor the Court can direct the landlady to go as per the suggestions of the tenant.

(Para 5)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Landlord residing abroad -- Merely because during the pendency of proceedings, the landlady is residing outside, cannot be a ground to reject the petition -- As soon as the property is vacated, she intends to do her business by converting the ground floor into a big hall and to open a showroom and the said contention of landlady cannot be disbelieved.

(Para 6)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Resjudicata -- Earlier petition filed for bona fide requirement by the husband of the petitioner was dismissed -- However, present petition has been filed by the landlady after the death of her husband and therefore, in case she wants the demised shop for starting her business by opening a showroom by converting the entire ground-floor into a hall, for her livelihood, a fresh cause of action has arisen in favour of the landlady.

(Para 7)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Presumption -- Landlord, who establishes his prima facie case regarding his necessity, the Court is entitled to raise a presumption in his favour to the effect that the necessity is bona fide -- Onus then shifts upon the tenant to show that the plea of landlord is not bona fide.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 16 – SC-Ex-serviceman – Appointment in SC category – Later deemed appointment in SC-Ex-serviceman category – Permissibility of -- Respondent had accepted his appointment as M.O. (Dental) against the post that was advertised only for SC category and appointed as such on 31.05.1993 -- Respondent’s claim for his deemed appointment as an ex-serviceman (SC) against the post advertised by the State on 31.10.1996 is not tenable.

(Para 3)